nificence of earthly monarchs; we understand, of course, that this language is not to be taken literally, and as being fully adequate to the description aimed at, but only as that of approximation. When we say, "God is angry; God hates; God scorns the Lord will deride, will laugh, will frown, will abhor, &c.;" do we predicate all these things of God, in a literal manner, or do we understand them all as conveying to us an idea of something in the divine affections, actions, or mode of treating us, which corresponds to something that is in men, or which they do? The answer is very obvious; and in all this use of language, we apprehend or feel little or no difficulty. At least, none but enthusiastic visionaries, who would fain make heaven like earth, and God like themselves; or ignorant men, whose thoughts are so chained down to objects of sense, as to be incapable of elevation above them, are embarrassed by such expressions, or substantially misapprehend them.

Are we not now prepared to advance one step further? May we not say, when the Scripture speaks of the Logos, as becoming flesh and dwelling among us; of his dwelling in the bosom of the Father; of his coming from God and being sent of him; of his humbling himself and taking upon himself the condition of a servant; and other things of a like nature; that we are not to suppose this language is adequate to describe, fully and definitely, the incarnation of the Logos, or his distinction from, or connexion with the Father? If I may be allowed so to express myself; It is all language of approximation. It is so of course, and necessarily, as it regards any description of the manner of these things. Language, from its very nature, must be inadequate to such description. It was not formed with such facts in view; and finite beings of knowledge so limited as ours may well be supposed incapable of forming it, so as to be adequate to the full and definite description of what pertains to the Divinity. It may nevertheless express enough, to excite our highest interest and to command our best obedience, if we feel and act as rational beings. And so much is undoubtedly accomplished in the case which has just been stated.

The principle of exegesis here exhibited, had it been early acknowledged, and generally regarded in practice,

1

would have saved the world much dispute, and two classes of men, in particular, much trouble. The one of these are men, who, while admitting the inadequacy of language, in other respects, fully and definitely to describe the Divinity, have taken it for granted here, that no such inadequateness was to be found, and have sought to define, and distinguish, until they have overwhelmed themselves and their readers with subtilties, too tenuious for comprehension. The other, hostile to the doctrine of a distinction in the Godhead, have forced upon the expressions in question a sense that was farfetched, and which violence only could make them to speak. It seems to me, that the path of sound reason, and common sense, is the medium between these two extremes. I would not do violence to the expressions in question; nor would I understand them as fully and definitely describing what does exist in God, or is done by him. I believe they are the language of approximation; that they signify something which is in God, or something that has been done by him, that corresponds to those things among men, which would be described by similar language; something of the highest interest, of the deepest moment, to the welfare of the human race. And though it might gratify my curiosity, and perhaps my pride, to know something more of the divine constitution, or mode of existing and acting; yet, I can have no assurance, no good reason to believe, that it would contribute, at present to facilitate my duties, or increase my happiness. I certainly have no good reason to suppose, that in the present state, I am capable of understanding such subjects, beyond what is already revealed respecting them.

Fourthly; the attentive observer cannot but notice, that whether we contemplate God in his works, or in his word, we cannot fail of finding things, which are beyond our comprehension, or power of explanation. The book of Nature, and of Revelation, so far as they bring to view the being, character and designs, of the self existent, and infinite God, who created and governs the world, must contain many passages, of the meaning which we can never obtain more than a general and imperfect knowledge. know but in part."

"We

In offering then to the mind, a view of what God is, and

what he has done, we do not expect, (at least, we cannot reasonably expect,) that this view should be all light, without any shade. Admitting that the Scriptures are of divine origin and authority; the question between us and Unitarians, in respect to what is revealed about the divine Being, is not whether the view, which we suppose the Bible gives, is embarrassed by no obscurities-is without a shade; or whether theirs is such. The proper question is; Taking it for granted that what the Scriptures declare is true, which view, on the whole, comports best with the language of the sacred writings? Which is attended with the least embarrassment, all things considered? I well know, that a moderate portion of sagacity will suffice to enable any one to press many questions upon Trinitarians, that are of diffi cult solution; many which are, in our present state, incapable of any solution. But I believe, that the same degree of sagacity, would enable one to raise more formidable dif ficulties still, in the way of Unitarian sentiments.

In expounding texts of Scripture, therefore, which re late to the present subject in dispute, I am not very solicitous to give an interpretation, which shall be above all question, or embarrassment, whenever it appears to me that a different or contrary exposition will be attended with still greater embarrassments,

With the preceding observations before us, let me proeeed to remark on some of the New Testament represen tations of Christ, which have been supposed to present difficulties, in regard to the views, that Trinitarians defend.

Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, is, as I apprehend, ever to be regarded as that complex person, who may be de.scribed as human or divine; in like manner as we may say of ourselves, we are mortal or immortal. As Mediator then, it may be truly said, that by his obedience he merited and obtained a high reward; i. e. this is predicated of that nature, which was capable of obeying, and of being rewarded. So God is said to have "highly exalted him, and given him a name, above every name.' (Phil. ii. 9-11.) In a similar way, all power is given him in heaven, and in earth; i.e. he is constituted "head over all things to his Church." (Matt. xxviii. 18.) Acting as such a head, "all enemies are put under his feet;" (1 Cor. xv, 25-27.) And this

mediatorial dominion, when the work of a mediator is completed, will be resigned, at the final judgment. (1Cor.xv.28.)

Of the same tenor are many passages. When God is said to be the head of Christ, (1 Cor. xi. 3;) I understand it of thatature, of which this can be predicated. When Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image (xagaxrap) of his person, & e. of him; or the only begotten of the Father, the Son of God; God's own Son; God's beloved Son; his dear Son, &c.; I understand all these, as descriptions of his mediatorial nature, and station. I know indeed, that many of these texts have been appropriated by some Trinitarians, to prove the divine nature of Christ; in my apprehension however, injudiciously, and without any solid reason. Texts of this class may be found, Matth. xvii. 5. John i. 14. x. 36. xiv. 10. iii. 35. Col. i. 13. Heb. i. 5. Rom. viii. 29, 32.

In Heb. v. 7-10, is a passage which has occasioned much speculation. "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered: And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchisedec."

If Christ had really a human nature, what is more perfectly consonant with reason and piety, than that he should act in the manner here described; or than that he should be exalted to glory, as the reward of these actions, and be constituted the Saviour of his people?

It is certainly more difficult to satisfy the mind in regard to John xiv. 28; 66 my Father is greater (ewv) than I." On examination however, it appears not to be the object of Jesus, to compare his own nature with that of the Father; but his condition. "If ye loved me," said he to his weeping disciples, "ye would rejoice that I said, I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I;" i. e. ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that " glory which I had with the Father, before the world was." You ought to rejoice, at

my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father. So 173 (great,) in Hebrew, is used for a state of prosperity, a happy state. Gen. xxvi. 13.

It is obvious here, that the whole text cannot be consistently explained, without the supposition of two paures; the one, which suffers and is depressed, in which too that other nature acts, that was in a state of glory with the Father, before the world was, i. e. from eternity. I cannot at all accede to the opinion of those interpreters, who suppose that the glory here spoken of, is only that which the Father had decreed from eternity that Christ should have, in consequence of the promulgation of the gospel by him. The glory spoken of, is not one that will result from what is to be done; it is a glory, i. e. a happiness, or blessedness, which Christ had with the Father, (xgos tov xariga,) before the world was. On this passage the commentary of Kuinoel may be consulted, who has defended this exposition, as it seems to me, in a manner entirely unanswerable.

After all, it can be only in consequence of the peculiar union of the Logos with Jesus, that his return to the Father (so far as the Logos can be said to return) can be spoken of; and only in reference to his humiliation, (avrov EXEYWσε, ἑαυτον εταπείνωσε,) that his return to glory can be expected. A thousand questions can easily be raised, and as many difficulties suggested; but they all spring from construing the language literally, and not merely as language, which must, from the nature of the case, be that of approximation.

"Of that day

Mark xiii. 32, offers serious difficulties. and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." The day and hour are, according to some, the day of judgment; but, as I apprehend, (from comparing the context,) the day of vento the Jews is meant. To solve the difficulty pregeance sented, some have objected to the reading, aude à vias, (neither the Son;) but to support this objection, there are no adequate authorities. Others, with Hilary (de Trinitate ix,) say, that not to know, is not to publish or declare. "Ea nescit, quæ aut in tempore non sunt confitenda, aut non agnoscuntur ad meritum." There is no doubt, that the verb vox sometimes has the sense of making known; but a derivative of the verb dw is used here, which does not